Hi, does this follow-up patch look reasonable? See: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01945.html
Is it OK for trunk? Thanks Bernd. On 11/21/16 21:46, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 18 November 2016 at 16:50, Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> > wrote: >> On 11/18/16 12:58, Christophe Lyon wrote: >>> On 17 November 2016 at 10:23, Kyrill Tkachov >>> <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 09/11/16 12:58, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This patch enables the ldrd/strd peephole rules unconditionally. >>>>> >>>>> It is meant to fix cases, where the patch to reduce the sha512 >>>>> stack usage splits ldrd/strd instructions into separate ldr/str insns, >>>>> but is technically independent from the other patch: >>>>> >>>>> See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00523.html >>>>> >>>>> It was necessary to change check_effective_target_arm_prefer_ldrd_strd >>>>> to retain the true prefer_ldrd_strd tuning flag. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf. >>>>> Is it OK for trunk? >>>> >>>> >>>> This is ok. >>>> Thanks, >>>> Kyrill >>>> >>> >>> Hi Bernd, >>> >>> Since you committed this patch (r242549), I'm seeing the new test >>> failing on some arm*-linux-gnueabihf configurations: >>> >>> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pr53447-5.c scan-assembler-times ldrd 10 >>> FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pr53447-5.c scan-assembler-times strd 9 >>> >>> See >>> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/242549/report-build-info.html >>> for a map of failures. >>> >>> Am I missing something? >> >> Hi Christophe, >> >> as always many thanks for your testing... >> >> I have apparently only looked at the case -mfloat-abi=soft here, which >> is what my other patch is going to address. But all targets with >> -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=hard can also use vldr.64 instead of ldrd >> and vstr.64 instead of strd, which should be accepted as well. >> >> So the attached patch should fix at least most of the fallout. >> > > I've tested it, and indeed it fixes the failures I've reported. > > Thanks > >> Is it OK for trunk? >> >> >> Thanks >> Bernd. >> 2016-11-18 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> >> >> * gcc.target/arm/pr53447-5.c: Fix test expectations for neon-fpu. >> >>Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr53447-5.c >>=================================================================== >>--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr53447-5.c (revision 242588) >>+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr53447-5.c (working copy) >>@@ -15,5 +15,8 @@ void foo(long long* p) >> p[9] -= p[10]; >> } >> >>-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "ldrd" 10 } } */ >>-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "strd" 9 } } */ >>+/* We accept neon instructions vldr.64 and vstr.64 as well. >>+ Note: DejaGnu counts patterns with alternatives twice, >>+ so actually there are only 10 loads and 9 stores. */ >>+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "(ldrd|vldr\\.64)" 20 } } */ >>+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "(strd|vstr\\.64)" 18 } } */
